Apocalypse Now Review

SPOILER ALERT

Click here to go to my previous review of the Pianist.

"I love the smell of Napalm in the morning."

Number 49 on the top 1000 films of all time is Francis Ford Coppola's 1979 epic adventure war film Apocalypse Now.

How it all goes down:

Set in the height of the Vietnam War, Martin Sheen plays Captain Benjamin L. Willard who is tasked with assassinating Colonel Walter E. Kurtz (Marlon Brando) who has gone insane and commands his own Montagnard troops in Cambodia.  Accompanying Captain Willard are a Navy Boat Patrol commanded by "Chief" (Albert Hall) and crewed by Lance (Sam Bottoms,) "Chef" (Frederic Forrest) and "Mr Clean" (Laurence Fishburne in his first major film role.)

What worked:

Taking Saving Private Ryan as a prime example, I think that any good war film should do two things.  It should portray an evocative, powerful and gut-wrenching picture of war and it should demonstrate the loyalty and camaraderie that soldiers share with each other.  Apocalypse Now ticks both of these boxes.  As well as this, the location and set pieces are great too.  Filmed in the Philippines, the surrounding landscape and scenery are gorgeous.

The Vietnam War cost the lives of almost 4 million Vietnamese, Cambodian, Laotian, American and many more soldiers and civilians, so there is no doubt that the war was bloody and destructive.  The film is just as horrifying.  Apocalypse Now contains a number of great action sequences that convey the terror the war caused.  The standout example of this is the scene involving Robert Duvall as Lieutenant Colonel Bill Kilgore who encounters Captain Willard's group and agrees to escort them through the Viet-Cong held coastal mouth of the Nung River.  Even though, Duvall has less than 15 minutes screen-time, his scene is without doubt one of the best in the film.  Duvall's character is tyrannical, insane and terrifying.  Duvall spends much of his time screaming obscenities and he is great with it.  He also gives us some of the film's most quotable lines, such as "I love the smell of Napalm in the morning." This scene also contains one of the film's most notable sequences: a helicopter raid of the local area set to Ride of The Valkyries.  This sequence demonstrates the grotesque grandeur of war and does it well.  For example, when a local Vietnamese girl throws a grenade into the American ground troops, Kilgore responds by having her and the rest of her group shot down from the helicopter.  One can't help but sympathise with the Vietnamese girl who is very much the victim in the situation considering the Americans are the aggressors in her home and country.  Another brutal scene comes when the Willard and his crew inspect a civilian sampan for weapons.  Panicking, Mr Clean shoots all on board.  To prevent any further delay, Willard coldly shoots the last remaining survivor.

As the film progresses, we see Captain Willard and his men grow closer and closer together.  Whilst, Chief constantly comes to blows with Willard, he acts as a father figure for the seventeen year old Mr Clean and is greatly affected by his death.  Captain Willard is initially sworn to secrecy but after after the death of Chief, he comes clean with Lance and Chef.  I really enjoyed watching all of the soldier's interactions with each other.  Seeing how they're affected by each other's pain and suffering was visceral and felt realistic of how real soldiers would react.

What didn't work:

This notwithstanding, the film isn't perfect.  My main issue with it was its length.  At two and a half hours long, it does drag quite a bit and the pacing is uneven.  Whilst Coppola did well in building the suspense in certain scenes, this is completely undone in others.  For example, after Mr Clean's death scene, the survivors find an outpost held by French troops and decide to stop there to catch their breaths.  However, this led to all of the previously built up tension dissipating and turned the film into a bit of a snooze-fest.  I almost fell asleep!

Truth be told, I was also a bit disappointed with Marlon Brando's contribution.  As the only other thing I've seen him in is the Godfather, I was expecting great things from him and these expectations never materialised.  Even though he is the villain in the film, he never has much presence until the very end where when he does actually appear, he is mainly kept in shadow.  Whilst Coppola agreed to have Brando filmed in shadows, due to how he was overweight and drunk for most of the filming, this hurt Colonel Kurtz' characterisation.  Whilst it can be effective to keep some villains hidden in darkness, as it were, I argue that the same does not apply for Colonel Kurtz.

What was ugly:

This is a nitpick which is why I'm saving it for this segment.  I'm sure I'm not the only one who got confused between the three characters whose names all begin with C: Chef, Chief and Mr Clean.  Surely John Milus and Francis Ford Coppola could have been a little more creative.

This film is good.  It's good in its portrayl of war and the horrific violence that encompasses it.  It does well in its characterisation and demonstration of relationships.  It's just a shame that the pacing isn't consistent and the character names are a little confusing.  Anyway, in its portrayl of the death and destruction of the Vietnam War, without doubt, in America's struggle to rid Vietnam of communism, they left miles and miles of broken bodies and burnt crops.  With the death and destruction caused, the Vietnam War is the Godfather of war post WW2.


Click here to go to my previous review of the Godfather Part II

The Returned Episode 1: Camille

SPOILER ALERT

The Returned is a recent French supernatural series based on the 2004 film They Came Back.

Never since Lost has a show left me feeling so confused or with so many questions, although thankfully, the Returned has yet to include a smoke monster, an island that travels through time or hostile natives. Set in the Alpine town of Annecy in South-Eastern France, Les Revenants or the Returned, focuses on a group of people who return from the dead. Unaware of their recent demises, the show concentrates on their attempts to reintegrate themselves into their old lives. Far from your traditional zombie show, the Returned is a poignant, challenging and enjoyable journey exploring the inner-most workings of human loss. I have just finished watching the second season and to help my understanding of it, I have decided to rewatch the show from the beginning and review it.

Featuring a large cast and plenty of narratives, the Returned is complicated from the beginning. Each episode is driven by a particular character with other character-driven narratives converging around the main storyline. The eponymous character in this episode is Camille (Yana Pillartz) who is a fifteen year old school girl whose school coach mysteriously drives off a mountain road killing all on board. Camille wakes up with no memory of the event and returns home to find that her parents Claire and Jerome have separated and Claire is now seeing the morally ambiguous religious man Pierre who runs a homeless shelter called the Helping Hand. Camille has also left behind her identical twin sister Lena (Jenna Thiam) who has grown four years older without her. Lena spends all her time drinking in the Lake Pub where she meets Simon Delaitre (Pierre Perrier)

 Like Camille, Simon has no memory of his death and spends the episode trying to return home to his fiancee Adele and his daughter Chloe. Simon first starts looking for them at Adele's old residence where a hospice nurse called Julie now lives. Julie is a fairly young nurse who leads a dull and unexciting life. This all changes when a boy named Victor comes to visit her. Next to nothing is revealed about Victor who quite literally appears from out of the darkness and attaches himself to Julie with little explanation. Julie cares for an elderly man called Mr De Costa who is visited by his wife who has been dead for thirty five years. The last narrative revolves around the characters of Toni and Lucy. Toni is the landlord of the Lake Pub and Lucy is one of his barmaids. Other than performing sexual favours for men like Jerome, Lucy is also brutally attacked in an underpass on her way home from work. Annecy is also heavily reliant on the Lake Annecy and dam that surrounds their little town and worry is caused when it is discovered that the level of the water is dropping.

Whilst this sheer amount of storylines and characters makes the Returned challenging and difficult to follow at times, this is also one of its strongest points. It doesn't claim to make things easy for the viewer and expects them to work to piece together everything that's going on. It doesn't just tell the audience what they want to know, but instead drops little hints and clues. To trust their audiences to do this shows the faith that the showmakers have in their viewers and I think it's a great way to engage the audience.

Camille's narrative frames the episode. We see her return home and continue life as if she had never have died. She showers and eats as usual, completely unaware of her recent demise. By showing Camille's school coach drive off the mountainside, the episode starts explosively. This was a shocking image, but a gripping one. The great writing of Camille's storyline pushes the episode forward. We are shown powerful and evocative reactions to death and loss. Claire and Jerome are stunned into silence to see their daughter return, whilst Lena breaks down in a fit of terror upon seeing her sister seemingly alive again. This was harrowing to watch, but I did find it a little strange that Camille seeing her sister break down in front of her then broke down as well, but hell, what do I know about coming back from the dead?

However, whilst Camille's narrative is strong and forceful, it is the other characters and storylines that make this episode a great start to the series. One narrative that has since become my favourite is the Julie/Victor one, despite how they are only minor characters in this episode. Victor is without doubt the creepiest character of the show, but also one of the most endearing ones. Without explanation, he follows Julie home one night from checking up on Mr De Costa and then invites himself into her apartment all without saying a word. It is here that we see the beginnings of their relationship that I have grown to love so much. Julie is initially wary and quizzical of Victor, but she springs to his defence, when her nosy neighbour begins poking her beak in, going so far as to saying his name is Victor, which he unquestionably accepts, and saying that he is a relative of hers. Whilst Julie is confronting her neighbour, Victor silently takes her hand. After the neighbour is fended off, Julie repeatedly threatens to calls the police, but eventually decides against this. It is these two subtle moments that depict what this show does best: character relationships.

It is interesting that none of the Returnees are welcomed with open arms. Lena breaks down upon seeing Camille again and Adele is more terrified than happy at Simon's return. Mr De Costa is so unable to cope with his wife's return that he ties her up, burns down the house and then commits suicide by jumping from the Dam, thus begging the question that once you've returned, can you die again, but it is how the Returned engages with this type of emotion that makes it so great to watch. It is perfectly logical that once you've made peace with someone's death, it would be unsettling and upsetting to see them again, as if they had never died. This is what separates the Returned from shows like the Walking Dead. Camille, Victor, Simon and Mrs De Costa are not zombies with an appetite for human flesh, but regular people who want nothing more than to return to the lives, they were never aware that they had left. As much as I love the Walking Dead, the Returned is just a breath of fresh air amongst this onslaught of zombies that is currently dominating popular culture.

As can be expected, this episode is mainly set-up of the rest of the series. It introduces the major characters and narratives. Kudos is also owed to the music and location. As it is set in a mountain-town, the background scenery is unsurprisingly gorgeous and speaks volumes for the small town of Annecy. It is highly isolated yet close-kn it community, where everyone knows each other. Lena is able to help Simon find Adele, as Adele once tutored her. Julie is Mr De Costa's care nurse. What affects one member of the community affects it all. It is this sense of togetherness and family that makes the Returned great to watch.

The music and sound is also great. Scottish band Mogwai perform the theme tune, which is eerie, atmospheric and sets a strong precedent for the rest of the music. Whilst the Returned isn't explicitly a horror show, it is rooted in the supernatural and is certainly unnerving at times, especially in almost every scene involving Victor. In every possible way, the music serves to enhance the tense and fearful atmosphere.

The most frustrating thing about the Returned is how ti leaves everything so damn mysterious. Whilst we know that Camille, Victor, Simon and Mrs De Costa have returned, we don't know how and we don't know why. We don't know whether they have returned for good and we don't know how Simon, Mrs De Costa and Victor have died. In fact, we know next to nothing about Victor, especially why or how he's so inexplicably drawn to Julie. Whilst sitting up all of these unanswered questions is a great way of keeping the audience hooked, it is also incredibly exasperating for the audience. I want to know why Adele is so terrified at Simon's return. I want to know how Mrs De Costa died and most of all, I want to know why Victor appears in the middle of the exact road that Camille's school bus is driving on, causing it to veer off the mountainside killing all on board.

All in all, this was great start to the series. It was paced well with moments of action that punctuates more character-based scenes. The music and location is great and the characters are well-realised. I found the Returned to e fresh, intriguing and original and I am keen to watch more. If only it wasn't so damn mysterious, but hey, maybe some of these questions will be answered in the next episode. Ha! Fat chance! 

The Pianist Review

Number 48 on the top 1000 films of all time is the powerful but heart-breaking film: Roman Polanski's 'the Pianist.'

How it all goes down:

Based on the memoir of the real-life Holocaust survivor Wladyslaw Szpilman, the Pianist follows his struggles of living as a Jewish man, as he and his family are subjected to increasing anti-semitic discrimination with Nazi-occupied Poland.  Beginning in 1939 and continuing to 1945, the film documents the horrific conditions that Jewish people lived under and what some, like Wladyslaw Spzilman, had to do to survive.

What worked:

As you would expect any film about the Holocaust to, the Pianist is brutal, horrific, unrelenting and extremely powerful.  Quite rightly, it doesn't shy away from the horrors that happened during the Holocaust.  Instead, it explicitly and graphically portrays these horrors for the viewer.  This is where the film rises to new heights.  As a viewer myself, I have heard about the Holocaust and the awful conditions that Jewish people and others were subjected to, but to see it in front of me was something completely different.  One of the most brutal moments of violence is when Nazis storm into a Jewish household where a family is eating dinner.  They demand that all of the family stand up to salute Hitler, but one of the men is confined to a wheel-chair and thus unable to stand up.  Without hesitation, the Nazis take the man to the window and throw him out of it.  This was a powerful and visceral reminder of the merciless and sadistic nature of the Nazis.  However, this act of violence was just one in a long line of many that all served well to keep me thoroughly engaged with the film.

Even though this film did well in depicting the brutal conditions that the Jewish people lived under, it did even better at depicting the panic and desperation that they felt.  In one of the film's most powerful scenes, a starving man tries to steal, essentially a bowl of slop, out of the hands of a starving woman.  In their struggle, the slop falls to the floor and the man immediately gets down on his hands and knees and gobbles up the slop directly from the cold, hard ground.  This scene was uncomfortable to watch, but a brilliant depiction of the terrible conditions within the Warsaw Ghetto.

The Pianist also engages excellently with the theme of family.  Wladyslaw comes from a large family all of which are vastly loyal and protective of each other.  Another powerful scene comes when the Szpilmans are waiting to be transported to Treblinka, they spend the last of their money on a tiny bar of caramel that they share as a last meal.  Fortunately, Wladyslaw is rescued at the last minute by a friend in the Jewish Ghetto Police, but his family are sent to Treblinka to never be seen again.  This was a touching scene and one that demonstrates the importance of family.

Polanski's direction is magnificent.  His depiction of the Holocaust is immediate, raw and doesn't let up for a minute.  He kept me engaged throughout the whole film and it is to be strongly applauded that rather than holding the viewer's hand, he throws them straight into the deep end.  Quite rightly, the Holocaust is depicted in all of its horror.

The acting and music were also superb.  Adrien Brody who played Wladyslaw Szpilman quite deservedly won the Academy Award for Best Actor.  Unsurprisingly, the soundtrack is largely comprised of piano pieces all of which fit the film beautifully.  In places they are understated, in others they are powerful.

Originally, I was going to criticise this film for how it has a happy ending.  After Szpilman escapes from the Warsaw Ghetto, he is hidden by the Polish resistance movement.  However, during the 1944 Warsaw Uprising, Nazis discover Wladlyslaw's hideout and he is forced back into the ghetto where he hides from the Nazis in the attic of a ruined building.  There he is discovered by a German soldier called Hosenfeld who rather than reports him keeps him hidden and brings him food.  Initially, I would have preferred it if Szpilman had died at the end of the film, as I think it is only appropriate that a film concerning the tragic nature of the Holocaust should have a tragic ending.  However, in hindsight, I realise that if the film had had a sad ending, this would have been catastrophic for two reasons.

Firstly, it would have been gravely insulting to the memory of the real Szpilman who survived the Holocaust thanks to Hosenfeld, but, secondly, this would have undermined one of the greatest strengths of the film: how it demonstrates the complexity of human characters.  In the Pianist, it is not always clear which character is on which side and at times morality becomes blurred. For example, the Polish resistance worker Szales who is supposed to be looking after Szpilman pockets all of the money that he is collecting to supposedly buy food for Szpilman.  Through how Hosenfeld chooses to save Szpilman instead of shooting him on the spot portrays how it can be difficult to clearly distinguish between good and evil.  Just like how Hitler scapegoated the entire Jewish population for Germany's suffering after World War 1, we scapegoat every single German soldier who fought under his command as a murderous, brutal thugs who killed without conscience.  As this film quite rightly shows us, this was not always the case.  Things are never that black and white.

What didn't work:

Whilst I can't criticise the film for its ending, one thing I didn't like about the film was how it constantly jumped from scene to scene.  The film begins with Szpilman and his family in their home before they're moved to the Warsaw Ghetto, where Szpilman escapes and moves from home to home before finally being driven back to the ghetto.  I didn't like how the location changed so often, as it really took me out of the film as a viewer.  Just as I getting used to a new location and scene, it would change again.  I found these constant scene changes distracting and detrimental to the film as a whole.

Another thing I didn't like was how the film barely touched on the Warsaw Uprisings. Even though, they were an important backdrop to the Pianist, we were shown the build-up and aftermath of the uprisings and not the uprisings themselves.  I was vastly disappointed by this, as I felt that the Warsaw Uprising is too important of an event to be made light of.    

What was ugly:

In its portrayal of the atrocities of the Holocaust, the Pianist includes numerous scenes of brutality. The Pianist demonstrated how the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto were subject to routine violence including executions that happened every morning.  This has to be one of the ugliest scenes in the film.

Rating: 

Awesome.

This film is powerfully done.  It does not shy away from showing audiences the horrors of the Holocaust, rather forcing them to confront what happened.  It has great music, acting and does well to portray the complexities of human characters.  If only the Pianist had focused more on the Warsaw Uprising and hadn't jumped around so much, then it would have been superlative.  A great film, but perhaps one too traumatic to watch again.  Whatever way you look at it, Roman Polanski does brilliantly to really convey how for some victims of the Holocaust, it seemed like apocalypse now to them.

The Prestige Review

SPOILER ALERT

Click here to read my previous review of Cinema Paradiso

Whilst the Prestige is number 59 on the top 1000 films of all time, the reason I'm watching and reviewing it now is because I recently watched it with my friends Lucy and Callum.  Lucy recommended the film to us and I'm glad she did.  It was a great film.

How it all goes down:

Set at the end of the 19th century, the Prestige follows the story of two rival magicians: Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman) and Alfred Borden (Christian Bale.) The two magicians were originally friends and performed regularly together as shills for "Milton the Magician." Michael Caine also features John Cutter, as Milton's Ingenuier (stage engineer) and Piper Perabo plays Angier's wife Julia who is Milton's assistant.  When Julia dies in a stage illusion as the result of Borden's actions, Angier instantly begins to hate him and starts to bear a grudge.  The two quickly become rivals.  The rest of the film focuses on them constantly trying to outcompete the other by coming up with more and more original and new tricks.

The Good:

The Prestige was directed by Christopher Nolan.  He also directed Memento and Inception, so there was no doubt that this film would be a mind-boggler and a mind-boggler it certainly is.  The film begins with Alfred Borden going on trial for Robert Angier's murder and then there is an extended flashback explaining what has led to this event.  Nolan constantly cuts back and forth from the two different timelines, which does make the film slightly confusing and also difficult to follow.  However, I also argue that this is a strength of the film too.  I think that the cross-cutting makes the film more engaging for the viewer as it demands more of the viewer's attention.

Another reason why I liked the film was its subject matter.  I haven't seen too many films about magic so this was new and different for me.  That notwithstanding, the film isn't necessarily about magic.  It more focuses on the showmanship and misdirection that is present within magic.  It made me think of "magicians" like David Blaine and Derren Brown who aim to entertain an audience as much as they amaze them.  Also, I don't think showmanship and misdirection is something that I've ever really thought about that much, but I can see why it is vital to a magician's act.  

Like any Christopher Nolan film, the Prestige is multi-layered and works on a number of different levels.  I really liked how this film included Nikola Tesla, played by David Bowie, and Thomas Edison and commented on the rivalry that the two shared.  I thought that this was a good subplot, which reflected well the nature of the main plot.  

I also really liked how the film commented on themes of obsession and devotion.  It demonstrated how it is all too easy to become too focused on your work and as a result lose sight of all other aspects of your life.  For example, both Alfred Borden and Robert Angier lose wives and lovers, as a result of their fierce rivalry.  This rivalry culminates within the film's climax, where Alfred Borden determined to create the best trick ever, creates "the Transported Man trick," which sees him enter a cabinet on one side of the stage and then exit another cabinet on the other side.  Robert Angier becomes obsessed with trying to figure out this trick and showcasing his own version.  He initially uses a double, but then approaches Tesla to create a teleportation machine for him.  The film built to this moment well and it was extremely dramatic.

I thought the film ended well.  The twist was good, unexpected and very logical.  SPOILER ALERT! It is revealed that Alfred Borden performed the Transported Man trick through the help of his secret identical twin brother who has been masquerading as his assistant.  Afterwards, it is then revealed that the teleportation machine that Tesla created also creates exact duplicates of the matter it teleports.  Angier was using this method to do his own version of the Transported Man trick.  I thought that this was a sensible and clever way to end the film.

What didn't work:

Whilst this film is to be praised on its acting, direction, story-telling and characters, I feel that at times it skirted over some important issues which should have been focused on more.  For example, due to Alfred Borden's rivalry with Robert Angier, he drives a wedge in between he and his wife Sarah who becomes so distressed at his husband's actions that she is driven to depression, alcoholism and suicide.  Sarah's fate is only ever mentioned on screen and never explicitly shown in film.  This is definitely a significant event and I think it should have received more screentime than just one or two lines.

Another example sees Robert Angier falling in love with his new assistant Olivia Wenscombe (Scarlett Johansson) but he drives her into Borden's arms after he sends her to spy on Borden for him.  Again, Olivia and Borden's relationship is only really talked about the film and it isn't given a great deal of screentime.  I would have been very interested to watch the beginning of Olivia and Borden's relationship, rather than just see it be talked about.

What was ugly:

The ugly side of obsession and devotion is portrayed in this film when Alfred's twin voluntarily agrees to have two of his fingers chopped off to make the Transported Man trick seem realistic.  In an earlier part of the film, Borden performs the Bullet Catch trick, but loses two fingers, as the result of sabotage by Robert Angier.

Rating:

Awesome.

This was film was engaging, different and very original.  It was interesting and had great acting and characters.  I really liked the film's narrative style, but I felt that it the film left just a little too much out.  This notwithstanding it is still clear to see why magicians were held in such high regard in the 19th century, as much as pianists in the 21st century.

Cinema Paradiso Review

SPOILER ALERT

Click here to read my review of the Godfather

Number 47 on the top 1000 greatest films of all time is the 1999 Italian film: Cinema Paradiso (Cinema of Paradise)

How it all goes down:

The film opens on the main character Salvatore receiving the news that a person called Alfredo has died, which distresses him greatly.  The film the flashbacks to his childhood in the small Sicilian village Giancaldo a few years after World War 2.  Salvatore is depicted as a mischievous but kind-hearted child.  Whilst he underperforms in school, his greatest love is for the Cinema Paradiso, which is the heart of his small town.  The projectionist, Alfredo, mentors Salvatore in the ways of the cinema under the strict condition that once Salvatore is old enough, he will leave Giancaldo and the cinema to live the rest of his life.

What worked:

I really liked this film, as it was deeply touching on a personal level,  Set only a few years after World War 2, fears of Fascism and Communism are still high and the destruction that the war caused is still evident.  However, the cinema is the fixture of the small town and a source of great pride.  This is why I enjoyed the film,.  It was heart-warming to see this community that had been damaged by the war be able to untie around the Cinema Paradiso.  This was a really nice idea and one that worked on screen.  It was so effective due to all of the different characters.  For example, one of the audience members is a man who falls asleep during every single screening.  The other audience members then try to throw things into his open mouth and he wakes up cursing and screaming.  This is a running joke throughout the film and one that works well.

As well as uniting a community, this film works so well, as it highlights the cinema's effect on specific individuals.  For example, the cinema is deeply important to Salvatore as it gives him so much joy.  He fails academically, yet is able to succeed through working in the cinema.  The Cinema Paradiso is also a point of great pride for the projectionist Alfredo, as it gives him a sense of purpose.  The relationship between these two characters is one of the best parts of the film.  After Salvatore's father dies in the war, Alfredo reluctantly acts as a surrogate father.  Alfredo is hesitant to teach Salvatore about being a projectionist, as he wants the child to do bigger and better things than sitting in a dusty projection room.

 However, despite Alfredo's warnings, Salvatore cannot stay away.  The pair display a strong loyalty and friendship which is endearing to watch.  When a fire breaks out in the projection room trapping Alfredo inside, Salvatore selfless runs in and drags his friend out.  This moment was surprisingly dramatic and I was shocked to find myself so embroiled in the action.  Even though, Alfredo is blinded by the fire and the cinema is destroyed, the townspeople rally together to rebuild the cinema, employing Salvatore, who has been taught everything about projectionism from Alfredo, as the cinema's projectionist.  These moments earmark the best parts of the film: how the love for cinema can bring out the best in people. 

What didn't work:

Salvatore was given a love story which did not work.  Salvatore runs the projection room for ten years, from a small child to a young man.  And as a young man he falls in love with a girl called Elena.  Whilst it is only natural that this would happen, the love story felt contrived and forced.  Elena is initally dismissive of Salvatores affections and in response, he waits outside her window every night for her to change her mind.  Whilst he might think this is sweet and romantic, it is actually creepy and stalkerish.  What's more surprising is that it actually works.  I can't quite remember how this narrative ends or whether it is given a proper ending, but the fact that I can't remember it signifies how weak a narrative it is.

What was ugly:

Salvatore selflessly running into the fire to save Alfredo is a great example of courage and heroism in such an ugly situation.

Rating:

Good.

This film is definitely one to watch.  Its different and intriguing narrative makes it entertaining to watch and it also mixes together well comedy and drama.  Just don't expect too much from the weak love story.  Either way I think this film is well-deserving of the high prestige it received.

The Godfather Review

SPOILER ALERT

Click here to read my review of Spectre

Whilst this film is number 2 on the top 1000 films of all time that's not why I'm reviewing it.  I am reviewing it, because I am writing my dissertation on Mario Puzo's the Godfather and the Godfather trilogy of films.  As I have read the Godfather, I will be comparing the two throughout this review.  And also it's just a great film, isn't it?

How it all goes down:

Meet the Corleone family, your average Italian-American family consisting of family patriarch Vito Corleone (Marlon Brandon,) his wife Carmela, their eldest son, the hot-headed Santino 'Sonny,' (James Caan) their middle son, the weak and uncharismatic Frederico or 'Fredo,' their youngest son, the quiet and reserved Michael (Al Pacino) and their youngest child Constanzia 'Connie,' who is constantly beaten by her husband Carlo Rizzi.  However, the Corleones are a family with a twist.  Vito Corleone is the head of one of the biggest Mafia families in New York and Sonny is his underboss.  Whilst Michael Corleone begins the film as distant outsider who despite having no wish to become involved in the family business, progressively becomes more embroiled until he eventually succeeds his father as boss of the Corleone family.  In Michael's succession, he is assisted by family consigliere Tom Hagen (Robert Duvall,) the three caporegimes Peter Clemenza, Salvatore Tessio and Paulie Gatto and the family's violent enforcer Luca Brasi.

What worked:

Oh boy, what didn't work would be a better question.  This film is number 2 on the top 1000 films of all time only beaten by the Shawshank Redemption (click here to read my review) and I'm just going to come right out and say it.  The Godfather is a better film and is more deserving of the number one spot.  No disrespect to Shawshank which is a great film in its own right, but the Godfather engages with so many different issues and themes that it works on a much deeper and more detailed level than the Shawshank Redemption. 

The Godfather's presentation of its central theme, family, is one of the best parts of the film.  It simultaneously sanctifies the family, where members are not only loyal and protective to each other, but also to outsiders, especially the German-Irish Tom Hagen.  These members then use this loyalty to justify their violent and destructive behaviour.  Vito Corleone has the power to grant favours for his close friends and family, regardless of their immorality.  Sonny Corleone beats his sister's husband after he finds out that she is being abused by him.  After Michael is punched by the corrupt police captain McCluskey who is being supported by the Tattaglia family, the Corleones respond by killing the son of the Tattaglia boss.

After the Tattaglia family in conjunction with the Turkish drug baron Virgil Sollozzo perform a failed assassination attempt on Vito Corleone, Michael who hitherto has been unwilling to get involved, willingly volunteers to shoot Sollozzo along with his bodyguard the corrupt police captain McCluskey.  All of these men justify their actions through the pretence of protecting their families.  This then raises a great moral dilemma for the viewer.  How far would a man go to protect his family? Is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread if it's to feed a starving family? The Godfather completely subverts the notion of the family being a place of sanctuary and I think that's one reason why it works so well.  It takes the viewer's expectations and completely turns them on their head.

Another great thing about the Godfather is its authenticity.  Everything just felt real from the setting to the props to the dialogue to the costume.  I really felt like the film-makers had put a lot of effort into making everything realistic as possible, even if the level of violence is somewhat dramatised. 

The characters and characterisation also really helped to add to the authenticity.  Great long passages in the book are devoted to explaining about characters like Sonny, Vito and Michael, yet within the film, the same level of detail is conveyed within about half the time.  This is partly due to great script-writing, but also to great acting.  Marlon Brando is brilliant as Vito Corleone.  Even if you have to turn your volume to maximum to even hear him, he conveys perfectly the cool, calculating manner of Don Corleone.  In actuality, I think that Marlon Brando's quietly-spoken dialogue really added to the character.  Don Corleone is man of persuasive logic who rarely makes threats or raises his voice or loses his temper.  Through how Marlon Brando whispers, Don Corleone's calm temper and disposition is conveyed brilliantly.

In the book, a detailed passage is dedicated to explaining Sonny's short temper, yet this is conveyed succinctly in the film, when Sonny smashes the camera of a photo-journalist who gets a little nosy at his sister's wedding.  This moment was reportedly improvised by James Caan.  The second son Fredo features even less in the film than he does in the book, but this fits in well with how he is described as uncharismatic and weak. 

Al Pacino is also great in this film, as it documents how his character Michael Corleone is transformed from quiet outsider to a ruthless Mafia Don.  Pacino portrays this transformation so well that it really is remarkable to behold.  Another great example of transformation is how Vito Corleone is transformed from the calm yet unrelenting Mafia Don to nothing more than a frail old man.  All credit to Marlon Brando for portraying this transformation so brilliantly.

The film was also interesting and engaging throughout.  Each idea and theme was explored in turn and never did they become muddled or confused.  Surprisingly for a film as long as three hours, the pacing was really good and it never felt like it was running on for too long or that the narrative was becoming stretched. 

And lastly, there is no way I can write a review of the Godfather without talking of the music.  The theme tune for this film, scored by Nino Rota, is just magical.  It captures everything the Godfather is about.  It's dark, eerie, ambiguous, melancholic, subtle yet refined.  As I've been writing my dissertation, I've been listening to it on repeat and it has proven to be great study music. 

What didn't work:

Nothing! Next!

No, seriously, there were a couple of things that bugged me.  Firstly, during a war meeting, two fish wrapped in Luca Brasi's bulletproof vest are delivered to the Corleones.  Sonny Corleone screams "what the hell is this," before Clemenza responds "it's a Sicilian message: Luca Brasi sleeps with the fishes." I just don't find it realistic that Sonny would say this considering that he has been in the Mafia since he was a young man.  I think it would have been much better if Michael, who is more unfamiliar with Sicilian symbolism, asked this.

I also think that Paulie Gatto is too young to be a caporegime, especially with how, in the book, a big fuss is kicked up about Tom Hagen being consiligieri, due to his German-Irish ancestry and also how he's only thirty-five.  However, I am just nit-picking here and neither of these points really warrant severe criticism.

I could be a massive book elitist here and talk about how the film differs from the book.  However, for the most part they are quite faithful to Mario Puzo's original text and the changes they do make are mostly for the better. 

The book begins with a lengthy description of the undertaker Amerigo Bonasera standing in court waiting for the two young men who have beaten his daughter to be sentenced.  To his disgust they are set free and he resolves to see Vito Corleone who he hopes can deal out some rough justice.  The film instead opens with Amerigo Bonasera saying "I believe in America," before explaining how he and his family moved to America as they genuinely believed they could make a better life for themselves.  I loved how the film opened on this point, as it engages with the theme of the American Dream.  During the early 20th century, there was an influx of Italians immigrating to America under the promise of the American Dream, before being disillusioned with the harsh reality.  Amerigo Bonasera immigrated to America to provide the best possible life for his daughter and was rewarded by his daughter being brutally beaten and almost raped by two young men. 

The beginning of the book is further changed when, during his sister's wedding, Michael Corleone, acting as an exposition device, explains Mafioso terminology, such as Consigliere to his girlfriend Kay Adams.  Whilst this gets a little lengthy within the book, the film punctuates the exposition well with scenes from the wedding.

Another major change is the almost complete omission of the character Johnny Fontane, as well as the complete omission of his singing partner Nino Valenti, who other than the famous horse's head in the bed scene, plays little purpose within the film.  Whilst the book focuses on Fontane's backstory and his failed marriage, the film completely omits this.  I argue this is for the better, as Fontane is mainly tangential to the main narrative.  The film also omits the backstory of Vito Corleone, although from what I remember, this is touched on within the second film, which I will of course be reviewing.

When Vito Corleone is attempting to broker a peace with the mob families, the book gives the backstory of every single one of the families, which the film omits.  I think that if the film had talked about every character in detail then this would have slowed up the narrative and added unnecessary information.

Whilst I could go on and on about how the film differs from the book, the only change that annoyed me was how the film hardly mentioned Sonny Corleone's mistress Lucy Mancini.  After Sonny is killed, the Corleones take care of Lucy by sending her to Las Vegas where she begins a new relationship with Doctor Jules Segal, who is also omitted.  I don't like how this section was cut, because I feel that it's a perfect example of the loyalty that the Corleones pay to each other.  Whilst, Lucy is nothing more than Sonny's mistress, the family still goes to great lengths to make sure that she is taken care off.

What was Ugly:

I've heard rumours about Marlon Brando's mumbling diction, but I've never seen it before until now.

Rating:

Superlative.  Be serious now.  Was this film ever going to get any other rating? This film is intense, engaging, informative and interesting.  It interacts with so many themes and ideas, but never once does it become lost or confused.  The cast are all brilliant as is the characterisation and characters.  Again, no disrespect to the Shawshank Redemption, but never has a film been more deserving of the number 1 spot on the top 1000 films of all time than this one.  Watching this when it originally came out in the cinema would have been nothing short of paradise.

Click here to read my review of Cinema Paradiso



Spectre Review

SPOILER ALERT

Click here to go my previous review of Dr Strangelove

So if you ignore every single James Bond film between the Man with the Golden Gun and Die Another Day, I have finally caught up on James Bond.

How it all goes down: 

The film opens in Mexico with James Bond (Daniel Craig) hunting down Marco Sciara, an assassin behind a terrorist attack.  Bond kills Sciara, but having stepped out of line once too often, he is taken off field duty and grounded.  Disobeying direct orders, he travels to Rome to attend Sciara's funeral and discovers that he is a member of Spectre, a criminal organisation that makes its first appearance since Diamonds are Forever.  Bond finds that Spectre is being headed by Ernst Stavro Blofeld (Christoph Waltz) and works to stop his plan to gain political power through his Nine Eyes Program.  The Nine Eyes program is designed to replace the 007 program by instead constructing a global surveillance and intelligence co-operation initiative between nine member states.

What worked:

What struck me instantly about this film was Daniel Craig.  Whilst, I didn't like his portrayl of Bond in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, I feel that he has relaxed more into the role within Skyfall and Spectre.  The opening chase scene sees him calmly walking across the Mexican rooftops.  He does this confidently and suavely.  If this was Casino Royale of Quantum, I would have half-expected him to fall off.  

Similarly, to Skyfall, I also really liked this film due to how it was so character-driven.  Bond attends Sciarra's funeral to honour Judi Dench's M's final wishes.  He takes care of Madeline Swann (Lea Seydoux) after her father, Mr White, kills himself.  I really liked the character-driven plot, as it made the film more identifiable and relatable.  I thought the broken family narrative worked well, as it is something that audiences could relate to.  It gave the film a good dramatic tension and kept it engaging.  Seeing the different characters interact with each other was much more interesting than watching explosion after chase scene after explosion after chase scene after explosion after chase scene after explosion.  That was tedious and repetitive right? Now you know how I feel after having watching Quantum of Solace.

The acting was great all around.  I've already mentioned Daniel Craig, but special mention has to go to Christoph Waltz.  Despite not having the most screentime, Christoph Waltz dominates and controls every scene that he appears in.  He is calm, calculating and utterly enthralling.  I also thought that the supporting cast were very good.  Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris and Ben Whishaw who play M, Moneypenny and Q respectively played very well off each other.  It was nice to see the three of them actually do something in a film, as they all work well together.

One of the most enjoyable things about this film though was Madeline Swann.  It was great to see a Bond girl do something more than just have sex with Bond and die.  I really liked her character and Lea Sedoux portrayed her well.

What didn't work:

Thinking about it now, I think that the narrative wasn't as strong as it could be.  Whilst I really liked M, Q and Moneypenny working together in London to prevent C, the head of newly merged MI5 and MI6, from launching the Nine Eyes Program.  I find it a little disappointing that Ernst Blofeld had orchestrated the Nine Eyes Program.  I just think that this is a little unimpressive for Blofeld.  C was a strong enough villain to carry the Nine Eyes Program narrative and Blofeld could have had a separate narrative or one that went a little further than just gaining political power by creating a global surveillance network.  As leader of a criminal organisation, I expected Blofeld to be more ambitious than that.

What was Ugly:

Mr Hinx, Blofeld's violent enforcer, is introduced in a scene where he gouges out somebody's eyes, which was definitely the ugliest scene in the film.

Rating:

Good.

So, this film is good.  I thought the acting was commendable, the supporting cast was strong and Daniel Craig was great as Bond.  It's just a shame that Blofeld's motivations as a villain weren't nearly as ambitious or convincing as I expected them to be.  Either way, as Spectre was the villain that James Bond encountered in Dr No,it still very much is the Godfather of James Bond villains.

Click here to read my housemate Michael's review of Spectre

Click here to go to my review of the Godfather

Dr Strangelove or how I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

SPOILER ALERT

Click here to read my previous review of My Neighbour Totoro

Onto number 44 of the top 1000 greatest films of all time.

How it all goes down:

Made in the height of the Cold War and just two years after the Cuban Missile Crisis, Dr Strangelove or how I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, focuses on the tensions felt by both the Americans and Russians in the aftermath of the arms race and the threat of mutually assured destruction.  The film follows the insane American General Ripper (Sterling Hayden) who after suspecting that the Soviet Union is planning on poisoning the water supply of the American people. General Ripper under the false pretence of a war order from the Pentagon, sends a wing of American fighters to drop nuclear bombs on Russia.  Only General Ripper has the power to recall these ships by using a secret code.

His executive officer, Captain Mandrake (Peter Sellers) desperately tries to stop him.  This narrative is paralleled with a separate storyline that sees President Merkin Muffley, also played by Peter Sellers, also desperately looking into how the nuclear missiles can be stopped with the help of the overly zealous General Buck Turgidson and the Soviet ambassador Alexei de Sadeski..  The stakes are raised higher when it is revealed that the Soviet Union have installed a "Doomsday Device:" many buried bombs jacketed with CoIbalt-Thorium G that will explode in the event of a nuclear strike, thus wiping out life on Earth.  President Muffley calls upon his scientific advisor, ex-Nazi Dr Strangelove, Peter Sellers in his third role, to help provide a solution.

What worked:

This film is good.  It's not outstanding, but it's good.  I think one reason it worked is because it is really weird.  It's classified as a political satire black comedy film and I could definitely see the comedy in this film.  For a film that deals with topics as dark as mutually assured destruction and nuclear holocausts, it has to have some comedy to stop it from becoming too morbid.  The comedy in this film works exactly to this effect.  In what should be some of the film's most dramatic and tensest moments, the audience is greeted to some some seemingly out-of-place moments of comedy.  For example, during the scenes in the war-room, a scuffle breaks out between General Turgison and the Soviet Ambassador after the latter is found with a listening device.  The fact that this scuffle breaks out in the War Room amongst grown men who are diplomats and military advisors serves to break up the tension of this scene.  It is so abrupt and sudden that you can't help but laugh at it. 

Another example of the comedy is when Captain Mandrake who is desperately trying to place a call to the President to tell him of the deactivation code lacks the necessary change to make the call.  He, thus, orders an American colonel to shoot the lock of a vending machine so that Mandrake can use the change from there.  The American colonel responds that if  he gets into trouble for this then Mandrake will have to answer to the Coca-Cola company.  Again, this humour is bizarre, abrupt and seemingly out-of-place, yet it still works.  Whilst, it is weird, it again relaxes the tension of the scene. The suddenness of the incident completely subverts the viewer's expectations and keeps them interested in what's happening.  

Peter Sellers is undoubtedly the best part of this film.  He plays three separate roles, but he plays them so differently and so well, that all they seamlessly merge into one.  Each character is so different from one another, that it is difficult to believe that it just one actor who is playing them all.  From the stiff and proper Captain Mandrake to the more reserved President Muffley, whose telephone conversation with the Soviet Union Premier Dmitri Kissoff is absolutely hilarious, to the Dr. Strangelove who looks like an evil genius, Peter Sellers is great in every role.

What didn't work:

I think that the film took a little while to get going.  The beginning wasn't as nearly as interesting or as engaging as the middle or ending of the film.  Whilst I definitely felt the tension as it progressively built through the film, I think the beginning was a little boring.  Also, whilst in some parts, the zany humour was effective, due to how it portrayed the farcical nature of the situation, in others it was just so weird that it detracted from the film.  For example, despite receiving the deactivation code, the Americans are able to recall all but one plane.  After the bomb doors of the plane gets stuck, the plane's pilot straddles the bomb to manually force them open.  When the bomb is eventually released, the pilot hollers and cheers as it falls to Earth. Whilst this was funny, I'm not sure how realistic it is.  

Also the ending was just plain weird.  It was too abrupt and sudden to feel like an ending.  The film ends with the hitherto wheelchair bound Dr. Strangelove suddenly being able to walk and screaming "Mein Fuhrer, I can walk," before the film cuts to a montage of nuclear detonations accompanied by Vera Lynn's "We'll meet Again." This was just plain weird and really didn't fit in with the rest of the film.  Whilst many moments of the film are anomalous, but still work, this was not one of them.  It was just too sudden and bizarre.

What was ugly:

I was watching this with my housemate Anna and when, near the beginning of the film, there is a brief interaction between General Turgidson and his mistress Miss Scott, who is also the only woman in the film.  Anna complained that whilst male members were greeted to the bikini-clad Miss Scott, female members had to endure the hairy-chested, beer-bellied General Turgidson.  

Rating: Weird

Wow.  This film is so zany that it has warranted its own rating.  Don't get me wrong, I did like this film.  It was tense and funny, but it was just completely bizarre at times.  It was weird.  I'm not sure how else to describe it really.  Regardless, of its weirdness this film really was a complete spectacle to watch.

Click here to read my review of Spectre

My Neighbour Totoro Review

SPOILER ALERT

Welcome to my second Studio Ghibli film and I'm sure it won't be the last.  Whilst this film is number 137 on the top 1000 greatest films of all time that's not the reason I'm watching and reviewing it now.  After me and my housemate Anna watched Spirited Away, we were in the mood for watching another Studio Ghibli film. On hand we had either Princess Monoke or My Neighbour Totoro and we opted for the much more light-hearted My Neighbour Totoro.

How it all goes down:

Set in post-war rural Japan, Tatsuo Kusakabe and his two daughters Sasuki and Mei move into a country house, where they can be closer to their mother who is in hospital recovering from a long term illness.  One day when Sasuki is at school, Mei follows two rabbit-like creatures into the nearby forest, where she meets Totoro, the spirit of the forest.  When the sisters find out that their mother won't be coming home as soon as they expected, Mei decides to attempt the three hour walk to the hospital to give her mum a present of some freshly grown corn.  Upon getting lost, Sasuki leads a desperate search to find her with help from Totoro.

What works:

What I love most about this film is its simplicity.  Spirited Away works so well due to how it combines so many elements together into one single film and My Neighbour Totoro works for the opposite reason.  At heart the film is a story about a little girl trying to bring a present to her sick mother to make her feel better.  There aren't any explosions or plot-twists just a simple character-driven narrative that works extremely well.  One reason it works is because of the excellent inventions of Totoro and also the Catbus, which Totoro travels around in.  Both of which have become icons of Studio Ghibli and they are both adorable and extremely creative.  They are friendly and welcoming towards the viewer.  I would love a life-sized Totoro cushion or a Totoro onesie.  *Cough cough* Christmas present idea *Cough cough*

The music in this film is also great.  Whilst, I have always considered Spirited Away as having the best sound track, My Neighbour Totoro also has some great music in it, such as its happy theme song.  The character-driven narrative also lent itself to some brilliant instances of dramatic tension.  After Mei had become lost and Sasuki was desperately trying to find her, I felt that the suspense and drama was very immediate, which is surprising considering that this is only a cartoon.  It kept me engaged throughout and I liked the supporting cast which were constituted of an array of great characters, from the wonderfully awkward Kanta to his loving and caring grandmother.

The film was also animated brilliantly especially Totoro.  Some of the funniest moments of the film emerge from his interactions with Mei.  From his wide eyes to his iconic Cheshire cat grin to him shivering when raindrops fall on him, every single animation of Totoro bring charm and humour to the film.  

What didn't work:

It is difficult to fault this film really.  It is funny, charming and very entertaining.  Whilst you can argue that Mei and Sasuki are a little annoying throughout the film, I think this is only because the English dubbed version of the film has them voiced by American actresses, thus making them sound brattish and whiny.  That notwithstanding, I do feel that something holds it back.  Perhaps it's the short run time. Maybe in a two hour film, rather than just 90 minutes, we'll get to find out more about Totoro, whom I would have liked to learn more of.

What was ugly:

Whilst watching this film, Anna told me about a dark fan theory, which the film-makers have denied is true.  She said that Totoro is the God of death and only those close to death can see him.  When Mei goes missing and what is thought to be her sandal is found in a pond, Mei actually drowned.  Sasuki then kills herself over the guilt she feels for Mei's death.  After the two girls find out their mother won't be coming home, they get into a fight and Sasuki harshly chastises Mei, leading to the latter running away.  To whoever thought up this theory, what the hell is wrong with you? Why would you want to turn an adorable children's film like this into something as dark as concerning death and suicide? Seriously? Why would you do this? You're ruining my childhood!

Rating: 

Awesome.

Another great Studio Ghibli film and one of my favourites.  It is an excellent celebration of childhood innocence and discovery and is definitely one to watch if you're an anime fan!

Skyfall Review

SPOILER ALERT

Click here to go to my review of Quantum of Solace

So this film is #516 on the top 1000 films of all time, but I'm watching it as it brings me one step closer to catching up on my James Bond films.

How it all goes down: 

In James Bond's darkest and most personal mission yet, he is sent to apprehend Raoul Silva, a former MI6 agent who after being humiliated and betrayed by M decides to take revenge on her and MI6.

What works: 

This film is good.  I enjoyed it much over Casino Royale and it was so much better than Quantum of Solace.  I liked it so much, as the action was much more immediate.  Unlike Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace, I actually felt the tension and suspense.  I preferred it much more than its predecessors, as it was much more character-driven.  Rather than being over-saturated with action sequences and chase scenes, it focused on the backstories of M and Bond.  I found it much more interesting learning about the different characters than watching explosion after explosion after explosion.  It made the film a lot more personal and engaged me more.

Skyfall worked so well, due to how it had such a good villain.  I really liked how Raoul Silva was portrayed.  He was given a good backstory and good motivations.  I could sympathise with his character.  In its portrayl of Raoul Silva, I think that this film also gave a more realistic portrayl of what it's like to be a spy.  Rather than romanticising British Intelligence, Skyfall explores how spies are essentially just used by their employers and then dispensed off when they've run their course.  Javier Bardem played the role very well.  Silva was ruthless, yet also quite pitiful and Bardem played the role with a delicate precision.  He was intimidating and scary, yet also very understanding.  To some extent, I could empathise with his pain.

The action sequences were good, due to how they were used in moderation and were executed well. For example, the shootout at Skyfall was extremely atmospheric, due to how it was brilliantly lit. The dark interior shots complemented by the moonlight helped to keep this scene really dramatic and engaging.  I also really liked the chase scene through the London Underground.  As a native Londoner, it was refreshing to be able to recognise some of the locations in this film.  This also helped keep the film more engaging for me, more so than when it was set in Bolivia or Madagascar.

The musical score for this film was also great with each track fitting the scene perfectly.  I was also more convinced by Daniel Craig in this film.  He seemed more confident in the role and wasn't falling over himself during the chase sequences.  Three films in and this makes perfect sense.  007 has adapted well to having his 'license to kill' and Craig has adapted to his new role as James Bond.

What didn't work:

As a James Bond film, it is only to be expected that your suspension of disbelief is pushed a little far. Whilst this is mostly forgivable for a film of this nature, it certainly worked to undermine the opening sequence where Bond is fake-killed.  Being shot by a sniper from a moving train into a river flowing towards a waterfall would kill anyone regardless of whether they're James Bond or not.  However, because James Bond is James Bond he survives.  This lack of credibility did hurt the dramatic tension of the film.  If the film-makers wanted us to think that James Bond was dead, they shouldn't have "killed" him in such a fantastic fashion.  They also should have waited longer to reintroduce him and omitted the out of scene segment of Bond attempting to retire.  Also, Bond should have died of hypothermia after he escaped from the frozen loch.

With the exception of M, the female characters in this film were largely useless.  Other than shooting Bond, Moneypenny doesn't really do much and Severine also does nothing except for sleeping with Bond and dying.  As the films are notoriously sexist, it doesn't really come as any surprise that the female roles are so poorly written, but I would like to see the female characters do something more other than having sex and dying.

What was ugly:

M openly admits that she's a bad shot after she misses one of Raoul's soldiers in Skyfall.  I don't understand how you get to be the head of MI6 by being a bad shot.

Rating: 

Awesome.

So that's a first: a James Bond film that I can say I thoroughly enjoyed.  It kept me engaged, didn't overdo its action sequences and had a great villain.  I have to say that I am looking forward to seeing Spectre next weekend.  I'm sure it'll be a great neighbour to Skyfall.

Quantum of Solace Review

SPOILER ALERT

Unsurprisingly, this film was not on the top 1000 films of all time.  My housemates have constantly warned me that this is the worst Daniel Craig film and said that I'm better off not watching it.  For the sake of continuity I decide to watch it and I wish I hadn't really.

How it all goes down: James Bond, still recovering from the death of the latest in a long line of Bond Girls, is sent on a new mission.  In this exploit, he has to stop the ruthless businessman Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), who is part of the mysterious organisation Quantum, who plans to overthrow the Bolivian government and install General Medrano (Joaquin Cosio) as the leader.  In return, Greene hopes to monopolise Bolivia's water supply and use it to fund future Quantum operations.

What worked: The shorter than usual length time!

What didn't work: As to be expected from a James Bond film, this film is more action than any proper narrative.  However, I think that Quantum of Solace takes this a little too far.  The film is absolutely dominated by chase scenes and action sequences, including four within the opening thirty minutes, that leave it convoluted and bloated.  Most of the time I didn't know what was happening and quite frankly I didn't particularly care.  The film was so saturated with these that I got pretty bored.  Also, just like Casino Royale, I was still very surprised to still see Bond constantly falling over himself in the chase sequences.  I read in reviews of Casino Royale that this was effective, as it shows us how Bond is still assimilating to his new double 00 status, but I call bullshit.  If you want James Bond to be a suave, sophisticated, fit, athletic, man's man, then don't have him tripping over his bloody shoelaces!

I also didn't think the villains were very effective.  If Dominic Greene was successful in installing General Medrano as leader of Bolivia, then he would have essentially just been a puppet leader.  I have seen this before in films and I thought it was quite a cliched, hackneyed thing to do.  Also, I thought it was very careless that Bond left Greene alive at the end of the film.  I know that Greene dies in the desert, but what if he had survived? What if he had returned and plotted up a new scheme for destroying the world? Bond would be feeling pretty stupid then, wouldn't he? This certainly doesn't raise my perception of Daniel Craig's James Bond.

I really didn't like the character of Strawberry Fields.  Aside from her utterly ridiculous name, she was completely superfluous to the plot.  Except for sleeping with Bond and dying, she does virtually nothing for her short tenure in the film.  Well, I guess she also made Bond say the stupidest line in the entire film: "can you help me find the stationary?" Bond says this line to charm Strawberry Fields into sleeping with him.  Firstly, the line makes no sense as it is essentially meaningless.  Secondly, it is also completely nonsensical that James Bond has to use a line as ridiculous as that to bed a girl.  He is James fecking Bond.  He is a charmer, a womanizer, a lady's man.  All he needs to do is just raise an eyebrow to make a woman weak at the knees.  In an earlier moment of the film, Bond charms a telephone operator, a perfect stranger, into lying about his whereabouts with no mention of stationary. If he can charm a stranger like this, why does he have to say something so ludicrous?

What was ugly: "Can you help me find the stationary?" Seriously...seriously? On what planet does anybody ever use this as a pickup line?

Rating: Alright

So this film did nothing to convince me to carry on watching James Bond.  The dialogue was cheesy, the characters were bad and it was oversaturated with action sequences.  Thank God, it had a shorter run time than previous films.  At times it was so bad I wanted the sky to fall on me.

Casino Royale Review

SPOILER ALERT

So, whilst this film is #366 on the top 1000 greatest films of all time, I'm watching and reviewing it for a different reason.  I've never been too big into James Bond.  They've never particularly interested me.  I did try watching them all, but I got up to the Man with the Golden Gun and got bored, so I gave up.  However, people keep badgering me to watch Spectre and as I haven't seen the other Daniel Craig films, I figured that I should start with Casino Royale.

How it all goes down: In Daniel Craig's first outing as James Bond, the film opens with a flashback of Bond obtaining his double 00 status through killing a corrupt MI6 chief.  In the present day, the enigmatic Mr White introduces a Ugandan freedom fighter to the French Terrorist Le Chiffre, and the film's antagonist. (Mads Mikklesen) The Ugandan Warlord entrusts a large sum of money to Le Chiffre who uses the money to short sell stock in an aerospace company.  However, when this plan goes awry, Le Chiffre organises a large-scale poker game in Casino Royale to pay back his employers.  MI6 believing that they can use Le Chiffre to to aid the British government send Bond into the poker game to defeat Le Chiffre.

What worked: I really liked some of the stylistic elements of Casino Royale.  I felt that some aspects were aesthetically pleasing.  I thought the monochrome flashbacks looked impressive and they suited the nature of the flashbacks well.  Some of the action sequences were enjoyable as well.  The film's opening chase sequence was thrilling to watch and I enjoyed the free-running element of it.  

What didn't work: As you probably can tell, I didn't enjoy this film all too much.  It reminded me of why I went off James Bond in the first place.  In too many places, it substituted any sense of narratives for explosions and excitement.  Even though, I did like the opening sequence, I felt that it wasn't as nearly as tense or dramatic as it could have been, as my housemate Charlotte quite rightly pointed out, "the fight scenes are boring, as you know that James Bond will win them," although you could apply this argument to any film of this nature.  Although, I do agree with Charlotte here.  I felt that the chase and fight scene, whilst impressive, could have been condensed.  Having said that, Martin Campbell also directed the Green Lantern, so I can understand why Casino Royale was boring in places.

I was also vastly disappointed by the inclusion of Mads Mikkelsen.  Considering how brilliant he is as TV's Hannibal Lecter, I was expecting much from him in this film.  This isn't the actor's fault though, but Martin Campbell's.  Mads Mikkelsen was good when he actually appeared in the film, but he was shamefully underused.  Other than the infamous torture scene and a little bit of sneering and glaring, here and there, he does very little.  I was also disappointed in how he died, effectively like a chump.  Bearing in mind, how he is the big bad antagonist of Casino Royale, film convention dictates that he should die after an epic fight scene with James Bond, not having such a mundane death as being shot in the head by the far less interesting Mr White.

One thing did confuse me in the film's opening chase scene.  Whilst the bomb maker Mollaka uses parkour to skillfully run away, James Bond continually crashes into walls, bounces off ceilings, falls over and generally just makes a fool out of himself.  This confused me, because as James Bond, I expected him to be suave, athletic and well not tripping over his shoelaces.  I don't know whether this was intentional.  Maybe it was to show how new he was to the field or maybe it was misdirection or just poor direction, but regardless Bond looked silly and it didn't give me a great impression of Daniel Craig.  

Whilst James Bond is supposed to be more dramatic than realistic, I felt that at times it really pushes the suspension of disbelief a little far.  Here, I must once again turn to my housemate Charlotte who pointed out a number of unrealistic incidents.  Firstly, in the film's initial chase sequence, where Bond makes a fool of himself by falling off and over everything, he doesn't have a scratch.  Secondly, after Bond chases after Le Chiffre who has captured Vesper and has left her tied up on the road, Bond swerves his car and flips it.  The car then barrel-roles, but of course Bond is fine.  However, Charlotte thought that the most unforgivable instant was when Vesper is trapped underwater and in Bond's attempts to rescue her, she drowns, but Bond doesn't.  Even though, Bond was underwater for the same amount of time, he suffered no ill consequences.  

What was ugly: No scene in this film was uglier than Le Chiffre torturing Bond.

Rating: Meh

So this film reminded me why I went off James Bond in the first place.  Not a great start really! Oh well.  Onwards and upwards to Quantum of Solace, although from what people have told me about that, I'm not sure that will spark an interest in James Bond either...

Hunted Episode Six Review

SPOILER ALERT

Premise: Last episode of the series and there are only four fugitives left.  Will any of them make it to the full 28 days?

Fugitives:

Stephen Cole and Martin Hardiker:

The episode opens on fugitives Stephen Cole and Martin Hardiker who have been on the run for three weeks. They've been able to stay off the Hunter's radar by living rough and cycling along canals.  The Hunters who are becoming increasingly frustrated decide to freeze Stephen and Martin's bank accounts, as the pair haven't withdrawn any money since the start of their time on the run.  However, the pair soon realise what has happened after their bank cards are rejected.  Using a hired minivan, they are able to make a quick getaway.  However, the Hunters are able to figure out where they are from the cameras in the ATM machines.  By hacking into Martin's girlfriend's Twitter, they find out that Stephen and Martin are using bikes to travel around the British canal network.  The Hunters further pile on the pressure by launching an extensive, targeted media campaign on the pair, which they find out when Martin uses a VPN to go on their Facebooks.  When Stephen and Martin go on the Twitter, we see a touching moment where their SOs give them advice and tell them to keep on going.  Stephen says "I think that means they still love us" and Martin retorts "of course, they love us, you dick!" The relationship the pair share is what made them so likeable in the first place.  This charm offsets very well with the intense pressure that the pair are feeling.  It is obvious that they are psychologically battered from the experience, but the fact that they can still laugh and joke around is what makes them my favourites to win.

As part of the media campaign for Stephen and Martin, the Hunters make an appeal to the public to bring forward any information possible.  They hack into Stephen and Martin's facebook to change their profile pictures to wanted posters and they also begin questioning people along canal towpaths. Whilst in Staffordshire, Martin uses a VPN to go on their social media, which is where they find out that there is a wanted campaign for them.  This is when they decide to change their tactics by dumping their bikes and moving into the city.  Again, we see more of the pair's charm, when Stephen pretends to be emotional about leaving his bike and Martin says "you fucking hate that bike!"

Emily Dredge:

After Emily narrowly escapes the Hunters in the last episode, when she risks a trip home to see her baby son Ernest, she takes shelter at a local caravan park in Dartford, Kent.  When asking whether there is anywhere to stay, Emily is invited back home to stay with two new accomplices.  I really liked seeing this. Throughout the series we see the fugitives rely heavily on the kindness of strangers, which is very touching to see.  Emily says that the only way she has gotten so far by how good she is at charming people and, as much as I dislike Emily, I do have to give her credit for this.  She is very good with people.  Out of all of the fugitives, she's gotten the furthest by relying on other people.  However, whilst on the home stretch, with a week left to go, Emily once again messes up by phoning home using the phone of one of her accomplices, Dawn Blackmore.  The Hunters are of course monitoring this call and locate Emily, but she is able to escape through how Dawn takes her to stay with her daughter Marnie and her housemate Jack in their student house in Canterbury.  The Hunters question Dawn who lies through her teeth for Emily, but looking at Dawn's Facebook, they realise that Dawn's daughter Marnie attends Christ Church University in Canterbury.  The Hunters think that Emily is staying with Marnie and go to catch her.

Lauren English:

We find out that Lauren has hitch-hiked her way to Wales in this episode.  Whilst doing so, she befriends two new accomplices who invite her to stay at their farm, which is very quiet.  This is where we also see Lauren's fragile state of mind, where she initially thinks her accomplice's blue, battered old car is a big, black 4x4.  In a move similar to Stephen and Martin, the Hunters also unleash a targeted media campaign on her, which severely spooks Lauren, in much the same way it did Ricky Allen.  

The Extraction

It is at this point with two days left on the run that they find out that they have to make a bid for freedom at one single extraction point: Fairoaks Airport Surrey.  All four fugitives have to escape via one single airplane.  They are not safe until the plane is in the air.  The Hunters are told the same information, but are not told where the extraction point is.  They initially rule out air and train travel, as there are too many documentation checks.  Deputy Chief Peter Bletchley, who was once a high-ranking undercover police officer, theorises the fugitives may escape on a private boat down the River Thames, when there is no such documentation checks.

Meanwhile, the fugitives all make their bids for freedom:

Stephen and Martin, who have travelled 500 miles on bicycle, foot and public transport from the Midlands to Wales and then to Surrey befriend an accomplice who lives on the doorstep of Fairoaks Airport and allows them to camp in the garden. It is whilst on this last night on the run that we see Stephen's devotion to this family.  He says that best thing about being able to end his time on the run is that he gets to see his girlfriend and his boys.  It is this devotion that made me like Stephen and Martin so much.

Lauren has evaded capture by hitch-hiking 800 miles across the UK and to reach the extraction point, one of her accomplices drives her to her sister's house in Reading, where Lauren spends her last night on the run only an hour away from the extraction point.  It is here that we finally see the pair speak some good about each other.  Lauren confesses that she is missing Emily and hopes to see her at the extraction point.  This was very touching to see and it redeems the pair for all of their bickering within the earlier episodes.

Emily has stayed off the Hunter's radar by being unpredictable.  From hitch-hiking to one end of the UK and back again, before diverting off to the East Coast, she has remained undetected.  She spends her last night as a fugitive in a pub in Chillam, 75 miles away from the extraction point.

It is now that the tension really heats up.

The Chase:

Upon questioning Marnie and Jack, the Hunters find out that Emily has to travel to Surrey in order to escape by plane.  They find out this information thanks to JACK, greedy, annoying, selfish Jack who sold Emily out for the £250.  The Hunters then start narrowing down airfields, ruling out private and military airfields.  I remember watching this and being on the edge of my seat, due to just how tense it was.  Here I must commend the show for how dramatic it has been.  With three hours left to go, the Hunters make use of how all airlines have to log a manifesto of all of their passengers.  Using this, they spot the fugitives' names on a flight from Fairoaks Airport.  From here, the Hunt really is on.

Whilst the Hunters desperately try to prevent the plane from taking off, the fugitives all make a desperate last dash for freedom.  One of the Hunters says that if the airport is controlled, they can prevent the play from taking off.  Meanwhile, all four ground teams aim to get to the airport before the fugitives. Emily hitches a lift to Surrey and then gets a family friend to drive her to the airport.   Stephen and Martin receive a lift from their new accomplices and Lauren is driven by her new accomplice.  Only minutes behind them are the Hunters.

Emily is the first to reach the airfield, where she reunites with Lauren and the two make it safely aboard the airplane.  It was great to see the two reunite, as we finally got to see how close the two really are and how they happy they are to be back together.  I guess that the psychological pressures of being on the run can fracture even the strongest of friendships.  They initially believe that they are the only ones who have made it, until Stephen and Martin burst onto the plane, and the four, rather bizarrely, then share a group hug.  Even though, the Hunters are behind them, they are too late.  The plane takes off and all four fugitives are safe.

14 fugitives had to go on the run for 28 days.  4 of them made it to freedom.

The Verdict:

So my initial reaction when Stephen, Martin, Emily and Lauren escaped was intense happiness. I was so overjoyed that all some fugitives were able to escape the Hunters, especially when there were so few of them left.  I was even happier to see Stephen and Martin escape, as they were my favourites to win after Ricky Allen was caught.  Did I say that already? I was even happy to see Emily and Lauren escape, due to how they have been in it from the beginning and have been through so much trouble and strife.  From the start, I have said that the good thing about the show is the moral implications it raises.  It makes you want to root for the fugitives and to demonise the Hunters, when in reality, the roles would be reversed.  It makes you think about what you would do in that situation and how you would react and this is why the show works so well.  The series has kept me engaged and attentive, due to how it has made me think about what I would do if I was on the run.  Has the series made you think the same? Actually, don't answer that! The government could be reading these reviews. Don't slip up by leaving your escape plan in the comments.  If I was on the run, I would definitely in the Lake District.  *WINK WINK*

However, my constant problem with the show has always been the practicality and authenticity of it.   This is mainly due to the use of the camera-operators following the fugitives around.  I have come to the conclusion that there have to be multiple camera-operators due to how we see many different shots of the fugitives from many different camera angles.  Are we really supposed to believe that this is just one cameraman running back and forth from location to location? Secondly, for the fugitives to be told information about the extraction point, then Channel 4 will have to know where they are.  If Channel 4 can find them so easily, then why can't the Hunters? 

The other criticism I have is the extraction point.  I think it is very unfair and unrealistic for there to be only one extraction point.  Surely if you're on the run, you would want to keep your options open.  You wouldn't limit yourself to just one extraction point.  You want to have as many escape routes as possible.  If one escape route isn't convenient to you, then choose another.  Also, some of the fugitives might be closer to the extraction point than others.  What if Ricky Allen hadn't been caught and was still hiding in the Scottish Highlands? How would he have gotten to Surrey in time? This raises another question.  What happens if the fugitives had missed the plane? Surely, they've still outwitted the Hunters, as they've avoided capture for 28 days.  Finally, it is also very unrealistic that the fugitives' real names were printed on the flight manifesto.  Any smart fugitive would have a false name on the passenger list.  

All of this notwithstanding, I have still thoroughly enjoyed watching this show.  It has been dramatic, tense, entertaining and has kept me engaged and interested throughout.  It has been great to see people's creativity and also to see how nice strangers can be to each other.  It has been one hell of a ride.

Top 3 tips for being on the run

1. DON'T PHONE HOME! I'm feeling like a broken record.  How many times have I said this? Emily once again almost got caught because she phoned home.  Just don't do it.  You're putting yourself and your loved ones on the frontlines if you do this.

2. Be very careful who you can trust.  Whilst throughout the series, we see strangers lie through their teeth to protect people they've just met, yet this episode showed how greedy and selfish some people can be.  I'm not mentioning any names *cough cough* JACK!

3. Keep your morale up.  Obviously being on the run is a psychologically battering experience, but a broken spirit can be much more dangerous than a broken body.  If you give up, you can become complacent and this could be what gets you caught.  Even though, we see Stephen and Martin's armour slowly begin to crack here, they keep their morale high through the series.